Tarone Jones v. United States ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6497
TARONE M. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN JAMES CROSS; J. CROGAN,
Associate Warden; J. COAKLEY, Associate Warden; H. BOYLES,
Health Service Administrator; M. WEAVER, Assistant Health
Service Administrator; T. BROWN-STOBBE, Health Service/Care
Provider; B. FRIEND, Health Service/Care Provider; I.
ALARCON, Health Service/Care Provider; UNIT MANAGER R.
MILTON, Unit Manager; L. HOLCOMB, Unit Case Manager; J.
DICKSON, Unit Counselor; W. DOBUSHAK, Health Service/Care
Provider; D. SWEENEY, Unit Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00115-IMK-JSK)
Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 26, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tarone M. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tarone M. Jones appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing with prejudice Jones’ claims pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), and dismissing without prejudice Jones’ claims
pursuant to the Federal Torts Claim Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)
(2006), amended by Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of
2013, Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54, 134, and 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2671-2680 (2006). ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Jones v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-
00115-IMK-JSK (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 12, 2013). We deny Jones’ motion
to appoint counsel, and we dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗
While dismissals without prejudice generally are
interlocutory and not appealable, a dismissal without prejudice
may be final if no amendment to the complaint can cure the
defects in the plaintiff’s case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
On the available record, we conclude that the defects identified
by the district court cannot be cured by an amendment to the
complaint and that the order therefore is appealable.
2